ROBERTO BUENROSTRO-BRAMBILA V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 14-73418 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO BUENROSTRO-BRAMBILA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73418 Agency No. A074-222-227 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Roberto Buenrostro-Brambila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1252. We review de novo legal and constitutional claims, and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not err, abuse its discretion, or violate due process in denying Buenrostro-Brambila’s motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it found that Buenrostro-Brambila had not provided an adequate basis to excuse the filing requirements. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider the issues raised and express its decision “in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice). The record does not support BuenrostroBrambila’s contention that the BIA ignored evidence or arguments. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990. The court’s jurisdiction to review the BIA’s sua sponte determination is limited to reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error, and Buenrostro-Brambila has not established any error. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-73418

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.